When it comes to morality, libertarians are often typecast as immoral calculating rationalists who also have a somewhat unseemly hedonistic bent. Now new social science research shows that libertarians are quite moral, just not in the same way that conservatives and liberals are.

***

[T]he study found that libertarians show (1) stronger endorsement of individual liberty as their foremost guiding principle and correspondingly weaker endorsement of other moral principles, (2) a relatively cerebral as opposed to emotional intellectual style, and (3) lower interdependence and social relatedness.

In his earlier work, Haidt surveyed the attitudes of conservatives and liberals using what he calls the Moral Foundations Questionnaire which measures how much a person relies on each of five different moral foundations: Harm/Care, Fairness/Reciprocity, Ingroup/Loyalty, Authority/Respect, and Purity/Sanctity. Typically, conservatives scored lower than liberals on the Harm and Fairness scales and much higher on Ingroup, Authority, and Purity scales. In this case, libertarians scored low on all five surveyed moral dimensions. “Libertarians share with liberals a distaste for the morality of Ingroup, Authority, and Purity characteristic of social conservatives, particularly those on the religious right,” notes the study. Libertarians scored slightly below conservatives on Harm and slightly above on Fairness. This suggests that libertarians “are therefore likely to be less responsive than liberals to moral appeals from groups who claim to be victimized, oppressed, or treated unfairly.”

The Schwartz Value scale measures the degree to which participants regard 10 values as guiding principles for their lives. Libertarians put higher value on Hedonism, Self-Direction, and Stimulation than either liberals or conservatives and they put less value than either on Benevolence, Conformity, Security, and Tradition. Like liberals, libertarians put less value on Power, but like conservatives they value Universalism less. Universalism is defined as “understanding, appreciation, tolerance, and protection of the welfare of all people and nature.” All three put high value on Achievement. Taking these results into account, Haidt concludes that “libertarians appear to live in a world where traditional moral concerns (e.g., respect for authority, personal sanctity) are not assigned much importance.”

***

“Libertarians may fear that the moral concerns typically endorsed by liberals or conservatives are claims that can be used to trample upon individual rights—libertarians’ sacred value.

***

“Libertarians are high in Openness to Experience and seem to enjoy effortful and thoughtful cognitive tasks. In combination with low levels of emotional reactivity, the highly rational nature of libertarians may lead them to a logical, rather than emotional, system of morality.”

Probably the most interesting part of this article, though, was the discussion of the Empathizer-Systematizer scale:

The scale measures the tendency to empathize, defined as "the drive to identify another person's emotions and thoughts, and to respond to these with an appropriate emotion," and to systemize, or "the drive to analyze the variables in a system, and to derive the underlying rules that govern the behavior of the system." Libertarians are the only group that scored higher on systemizing than on empathizing—and they scored a lot higher. The authors go on to suggest that systemizing is “characteristic of the male brain, with very extreme scores indicating autism.” They then add, “We might say that liberals have the most ‘feminine’ cognitive style, and libertarians the most ‘masculine.’”

Yes, tendency to systematize instead of empathize is something that libertarians, sociopaths, and autistics have in common.

372 comments:

Bout to take some motherfing test. I lean quite libertarians but I vote party line dems. Cause a vote for libertarians is a vote for Newt Gingrich. I like Obama too. Things are a lot better than they we're 4 years ago.

Just from the 1st few questions on this EQ test I feel its made for a normal person and not some who manipulates with almost every word. Like the answers could vary depending on what situation I am in.

Tell me something though. You people say sociopaths are fearless and don't care about the future, then why is it you always target the weak ones? Why would fearless people that like the thrill abuse or bully sensitive and weak people? Why don't you bully the violent black guy who'd beat you up if you started messing with him? Serial killers track girls who have no chance of getting away, how is that strong? Look at Ted Bundy, he started shitting in his pants when he knew it was time to die, how is that fearless? What about Gaddafi, he shat his pants too when he got caught by the army and had to go through all the people he dictated? You guys keep saying you're better than empaths, but you don't even know what you want. Even when you have power, it still isn't enough for you, you still want more and end up dead because of it. How is that better? Wake up morons, sociopaths are just a bunch of cowards with no future. Boring persons. I don't even know why people would pay so much attention to them when they're just blank pages.

I have been reading ME's articles and am trying to figure out the concept of the self. I am trying to figure out my self, and how it is holding me back from my potential, which it is. I see several things at SW.One is one person, in particular, who never learns from consequences. That is a classic sociopath characteristics. I am amazed at the extent of it.In the past, I have not learned from my actions, but not to that degree.It is as if the person is a blockhead.

The other thing was what TNP said about molding himself to a woman, and then when she was hooked, letting her see the real him, or an approximation of it.

He seemed to think that was a great game, and maybe it is. However, the larger point is that it is a damn lot of trouble to play.

He thinks he is getting one over on the person when really, he is screwing himself that he NEEDS to play it.

I am not dissing him. I am just trying to figure out how *I* can get my own self to more functional.

Monica as an experiment i suggest *you* start playing with acting like a man so you can explore what it might be like to do stereotypical "manly" things. It's fun. Men have too much power, at least in some places.

*cough*

But more importantly you get all animal fierce. Women aren't supposed to raise their voices, etc etc, etc, it isn't lady like...fuck that.. There's a time and place, and this place ain't it.

Out of the relationships I have had, the ones that lasted the longest are the ones where my GF was independent, and busy with work. Self sufficient, and not in need of a lot of emotion attention. My longest was 5 years, and she was drained in the end. She changed, and ended up wanting more from me.

This doesn't surprise me much. I'm actually surprised my Empathizing was as high as it is (even though Avg. female score is 48). I think that part of the test is mildly flawed though. It's easy to tell things about another person by being observant. I'm not sure that has anything to do with empathy, strictly speaking.

"I disagree. If being someone else is part of what you are, then in abstract; you are being yourself."

I like this Eden, but I can't help but wonder if it's situational or just a justification. I'm not my Self at work. To the point where I often feel dissociated form my body. But my dissociation is a part of me, as is the face I put on professionally. I wouldn't consider this my true Self. I would consider my true Self to be the characteristics I possess that make me feel this is necessary though. Hm.

The face may not be true but the mechanisms that drive the facade are.

@ Haven a work face is a different face but one can be true to oneself, whatever face one wears. That is my point, being true to oneself. First, one has to find the self to which one must be true. That is the tricky part if you have any PD, even co-dependency.

I have no interest in political parties or politicians. Libertarians remind me of a movement yearning for the way things were pre Great War. It didn't work the first time, Jack.

Religion on the other hand, that's some interesting bits. A non-regulated societal sect where many moral people are willing to break civilization's laws for a new set of divine ones. The more extreme the difference, the more extreme the personalities you attract, and often the more malleable and willing.

"Tell me something though. You people say sociopaths are fearless and don't care about the future, then why is it you always target the weak ones? Why would fearless people that like the thrill abuse or bully sensitive and weak people? Why don't you bully the violent black guy who'd beat you up if you started messing with him? Serial killers track girls who have no chance of getting away, how is that strong? Look at Ted Bundy, he started shitting in his pants when he knew it was time to die, how is that fearless? What about Gaddafi, he shat his pants too when he got caught by the army and had to go through all the people he dictated? You guys keep saying you're better than empaths, but you don't even know what you want. Even when you have power, it still isn't enough for you, you still want more and end up dead because of it. How is that better? Wake up morons, sociopaths are just a bunch of cowards with no future. Boring persons. I don't even know why people would pay so much attention to them when they're just blank pages."

Hollywood has fed the public the idea that sociopaths are fearless imo. Sociopaths, like all animals, are petrified of death, even more than the average person. They have no "spirituality" to comfort themselves, let alone religion. I believe people mistake a sociopaths arrogance and underestimation of people, as fearlessness.

Anon, you have an emotional no silty associated with picking on the strong or of not taking advantage of the weak. Sociopaths know where the winning bet should be placed. Your nobility makes you know where to place your bets, you just choose the long shot and hope for the best instead of winning.

Ukan said, ”Gaddafi may have ended up dead, but he was one of the longest rulers in the history of the world. What epitaph will you have?

Exactly.

Everybody ends up dead. Death, for many of us anyway, is going to be an ugly affair no matter how you slice it. So the question isn’t how ugly will your death be. The question is, how much satisfaction will you wring out of life before you die. Your satisfaction matters more than your moral superiority.

Then again, moral superiority can be quite satisfying to a lot of people... Especially when that is the only kind of superiority you can pretend to lay claim to. Yup, when all else fails, tell yourself how much better you are than all those successful people who actually control your life.

after the trial was over and alcala had received his death sentance. matt murphy offered his opinion of alcala as a defense attorney. "thankfully he was terrible," said murphy. "sociopaths think they are smarter than their attorneys, smarter than everybody. these guys obsess about facts and lose sight of of the big picture. intellectually they are smart, but they are never as smart as they think they are"

"the key to trying cases is trying to figure out what the jury is wondering, thinking, wanting to know, and needing to know.. and sociopaths are incapable of empathy, of feeling what another person feels, and thinking the way another person thinks. that's why they have no clue what juror wants or needs to hear. that's why alcala did a terrible job in his role as a defense lawyer"

rappaport did admit that alcala "had a sexual perversion. the idea of being sexually prepubescent or pubescent children, young girls and so forth, is a perversion" rappaport reported that alcala "talked to me about his preference for young girls because they were fit, because their bodies are tight.. which is a characteristic he admired in his mother, who was a caretaker..."

murphy reiterated what he had said during the guilt phase: that alcala did not suffer from borderline personality disorder. rather he "had a narcissistic personality disorder with antisocial traits. what does that mean? that means he is an evil monster who knows what he is doing is wrong and doesn't care. that's what the diagnoses means"

on febuary 13, 1979 monique hoyt, age fifteen, was hitchhiking when a "charming, nice, mild man" pulled up in his car next to her. "hey," he called out. "wanna pose for some photographs? it's a contest. we could be winners!" flattered that the man thought she was pretty enough for a contest photo, hoyt got in the car. to hoyt, he looked like the real deal. the man said his name was rodney alcala. she introduced herself "i'm monique hoyt" they first drove to alcala's mother's house, where alcala was living. alcala told hoyt that he needed to pick up more photography equipment. by now, however, the sun was going down and it was too late for taking pictures, so the two spent the night at alcala's home. the next morning alcala and hoyt drove to a deserted area in the mountains outside of banning, in riverside, where alcala said he wanted to take some photographs. they parked the car and began walking. after fifteen minutes or so, and now deep in the woods, alcala finally came to the location he was looking for. with camera poised, he began taking shots of hoyt, then he asked hoyt if she would object to his taking some nude photographs. alcala then took many shot of the young girl naked. finally, aclala asked hoyt if he could shoot some silly pictures of her. "let's see" he said. "pull your shirt over your face" hoyt did as she was asked. just as she her t shirt over her eyes, she felt a whack to her face and immediately slumped to the ground. she could see that alcala had bashed her head with a tree branch, but then she blacked out.

sometime later, hoyt slowly came to. being a streetwise kid, instead of panicking, her instincts told her not to move or open her eyes but to pretend to be asleep. she began thinking about what had happened and what she could do to save herself. her first thought was she should get up and make a run for it. but then the rape began. first the man began to bite her genital area and her breasts. she tried as hard as she could not to wince. instinctively she knew crying out would be a bad move. then he penetrated her vagina. then he sodomized her. unable to remain quiet any long, she began screaming. enraged, the man stuffed her t shirt into her mouth "shut up" he yelled "shut up" finally he choked her with his hands and she lost consciousness again.

'she tried as hard as she could not to wince. instinctively she knew crying out would be a bad move. then he penetrated her vagina. then he sodomized her. unable to remain quiet any long, she began screaming. enraged, the man stuffed her t shirt into her mouth "shut up" he yelled "shut up" finally he choked her with his hands and she lost consciousness again'

"Hi i wanted to know if it normal to sniff womens underwear. when ever i might be at a girls house if i ever find a pair of her panties maybe in the bathroom in the laundry basket or on her bedroom floor even in her drawer if i get a chance to look in there i have the urge to smell them. i have taken many pairs of different girls panties be it neighbours, friends, girlfriends, friends sisters and mums. as long as the girl isnt relly fat or ugly i will want there panties. i have a nice collection of about 20 or 25 pairs."

Featured comment

Of course, my default is still to intuitively analyze every outcome and situation and achieve the best result, but it's more interesting to let people remain a variable and go in their own direction, rather than nudging them in the direction I prefer. Interacting with people WITHOUT trying to control them is a new paradigm for me.